Bacterial infections remain among the most common and deadly causes of human disease. Infectious diseases are the third leading cause of death in the United States and the leading cause of death worldwide (Binder et al. (1999) Science 284, 1311-1313). Multi-drug-resistant bacteria now cause infections that pose a grave and growing threat to public health. It has been shown that bacterial pathogens can acquire resistance to first-line and even second-line antibiotics (Stuart B. Levy, The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance, in Scientific American, 46-53 (March, 1998); Walsh, C. (2000) Nature 406, 775-781; Schluger, N. (2000) Int. J. Tuberculosis Lung Disease 4, S71-S75; Raviglione et al., (2001) Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 953, 88-97). New approaches to drug development are necessary to combat the ever-increasing number of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. The present invention provides one such approach.
RNA polymerase (RNAP) is the molecular machine responsible for transcription and is the target, directly or indirectly, of most regulation of gene expression (Ebright, R. (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 304, 687-698; Darst, S. (2001) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 11, 155-162; Cramer, P. (2002) Curr. Opin. Structl: Biol. 12, 89-97; Murakami & Darst (2003) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 13, 31-39; Borukhov & Nudler (2003) Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 6, 93-100; Landick, R. (2001) Cell 105, 567-570; Korzheva & Mustaev (2001) Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 4, 119-125; Armache, et al. (2005) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 15, 197-203; Woychik & Hampsey (2002); Cell 108, 453-463; Asturias, F. (2004) Curr. Opin. GenetDev. 14, 121-129; Cramer, P. (2004) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 14, 218-226; Geiduschek & Kassayetis (2001) J. Mol. Biol. 310, 1-26). Bacterial RNAP core enzyme has a molecular mass of ˜380,000 Da and consists of one β′ subunit, one β subunit, two α subunits, and one c subunit; bacterial RNAP holoenzyme has a molecular mass of ˜450,000 Da and consists of bacterial RNAP core enzyme in complex with the transcription initiation factor σ (Ebright, R. (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 304, 687-698; Darst, S. (2001) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 11, 155-162; Cramer, P. (2002) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 12, 89-97; Murakami & Darst (2003) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 13, 31-39; Borukhov & Nudler (2003) Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 6, 93-100). Bacterial RNAP core subunit sequences are conserved across Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial species (Ebright, R. (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 304, 687-698; Darst, S. (2001) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 11, 155-162; Iyer, et al. (2004) Gene 335, 73-88). Eukaryotic RNAP I, RNAP II, and RNAP III contain counterparts of all bacterial RNAP core subunits, but eukaryotic-subunit sequences and bacterial-subunit sequences exhibit only limited conservation (Ebright, R. (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 304, 687-698; Darst, S. (2001) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 11, 155-162; Cramer, P. (2002) Curr. Opin. Structl. Biol. 12, 89-97).
Bacterial RNAP is a proven target for antibacterial therapy (Chopra, et al. (2002) J. Appl. Microbiol. 92, 4S-15S; Darst, S. (2004) Trends Biochem. Sci. 29, 159-162). The suitability of bacterial RNAP as a target for antibacterial therapy follows from the fact that bacterial RNAP is an essential enzyme (permitting efficacy), the fact that bacterial RNAP subunit sequences are conserved (providing a basis for broad-spectrum activity), and the fact that bacterial RNAP subunit sequences are only weakly conserved in eukaryotic RNAP I, RNAP II, and RNAP III (providing a basis for therapeutic selectivity).
The rifamycin antibacterial agents—notably rifampicin, rifapentine, and rifabutin—function by binding to and inhibiting bacterial RNAP (Chopra, et al. (2002) J. Appl. Microbiol. 92, 4S-15S; Darst, S. (2004) Trends Biochem. Sci. 29, 159-162; Floss & Yu (2005) Chem. Rev. 105, 621-632; Campbell, et al. (2001) Cell 104, 901-912; Artsimovitch, et al. (2005) Cell 122, 351-363). The rifamycins bind to a site on bacterial RNAP adjacent to the RNAP active center and sterically and/or allosterically prevent extension of RNA chains beyond a length of 2-3 nt (Chopra, et al. (2002) J. Appl. Microbiol. 92, 4S-15S; Darst, S. (2004) Trends Biochem. Sci. 29, 159-162; Floss & Yu (2005) Chem. Rev. 105, 621-632; Campbell, et al. (2001) Cell 104, 901-912; Artsimovitch, et al. (2005) Cell 122, 351-363). The rifamycins are in current clinical use in treatment of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial infections (Chopra, et al. (2002) J. Appl. Microbiol. 92, 4S-15S; Darst, S. (2004) Trends Biochem. Sci. 29, 159-162; Floss & Yu (2005) Chem. Rev. 105, 621-632; Campbell, et al. (2001) Cell 104, 901-912; Artsimovitch, et al. (2005) Cell 122, 351-363). The rifamycins are of particular importance in treatment of tuberculosis; the rifamycins are first-line anti-tuberculosis agents and are the only anti-tuberculosis agents able rapidly to clear infection and prevent relapse (Mitchison, D. (2000) Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 4, 796-806). The rifamycins also are of importance in treatment of bacterial infections relevant to biowarfare or bioterrorism; combination therapy with ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, and rifampicin was successful in treatment of inhalational anthrax following the 2001 anthrax attacks (Mayer, et al. (2001) JAMA 286, 2549-2553), and combination therapy with ciprofloxacin and rifampicin, or doxycycline with rifampicin, is recommended for treatment of future cases of inhalational anthrax (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001) JAMA 286, 2226-2232).
The clinical utility of the rifamycin antibacterial agents is threatened by the existence of bacterial strains resistant to rifamycins (Chopra, et al. (2002) J. Appl. Microbiol. 92, 4S-15S; Darst, S. (2004) Trends Biochem. Sci. 29, 159-162; Floss & Yu (2005) Chem. Rev. 105, 621-632; Campbell, et al. (2001) Cell 104, 901-912; Artsimovitch, et al. (2005) Cell 122, 351-363). Resistance to rifamycins typically involves substitution of residues in or immediately adjacent to the rifamycin binding site on bacterial RNAP—i.e., substitutions that directly decrease binding or function of rifamycins. A significant and increasing percentage of cases of tuberculosis are resistant to rifampicin (1.4% of new cases, 8.7% of previously treated cases, and 100% of cases designated multidrug-resistant, in 1999-2002; Schluger, N. (2000) Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 4, S71-S75; Raviglione, et al. (2001) Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 953, 88-97; Zumia, et al. (2001) Lancet Infect. Dis. 1, 199-202; Dye, et al. (2002) J. Infect. Dis. 185, 1197-1202; WHO/IUATLD (2003) Anti-tuberculosis drug resistance in the world: third global report (WHO, Geneva)). Strains of bacterial bioweapons agents resistant to rifampicin can be, and have been, constructed (Lebedeva, et al. (1991) Antibiot. Khimioter. 36, 19-22; Pomerantsev, et al. (1993) Antibiot. Khimioter. 38, 34-38; Volger, et al. (2002) Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46, 511-513; Marianelli, et al. (204) J. Clin. Microbiol. 42, 5439-5443).
In view of the public-health threat posed by rifamycin-resistant and multidrug-resistant bacterial infections, there is an urgent need for new classes of antibacterial agents that (i) target bacterial RNAP (and thus have the same biochemical effects as rifamycins), but that (ii) target sites within bacterial RNAP distinct from the rifamycin binding site (and thus do not show cross-resistance with rifamycins). (See Chopra, et al. (2002) J. Appl. Microbiol. 92, 4S-15S; Darst, S (2004) Trends Biochem. Sci. 29, 159-162.)
Recently, crystallographic structures have been determined for bacterial RNAP and eukaryotic RNAP II (Zhang et al., (1999) Cell 98, 811-824; Cramer et al., (2000) Science 288, 640-649; Naryshkin et al., (2000) Cell 101, 601-611; Kim et al., (2000) Science 288, 1418-1421; Korzheva et al., (2000) Science 289, 619-625; Ebright, R. (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 304, 687-689; Cramer et al., (2001) Science 292, 1863-1876; Gnatt et al., (2001) Science 292, 1876-1882; Mekler et al., (2002) Cell 108, 599-614; Murakami et al., (2002) Science 296, 1280-1284; Murakami et al., (2002) Science 296, 1285-1290; Vassylyev et al., (2002) Nature 417, 712-719; Bushnell et al., (2004) Science 303, 983-988; Westover et al., (2004) Science 303, 1014-1016; Armache, et al., (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 6964-6968). Moreover, cryo-EM structures have been determined for bacterial RNAP and eukaryotic RNAP I (Opalka, et al. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 617-622; Darst, et al. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4296-4301; DeCarlo, et al. (2003) J. Mol. Biol. 329, 891-902).
Structures also have been determined for RNAP complexes with nucleic acids, nucleotides and inhibitors (Campbell, et al. (2001) Cell 104, 901-912; Artsimovitch, et al. (2005) Cell 122, 351-363; Campbell, et al. (2005) EMBO J. 24, 674-682; Artsimovitch, et al. (2004) Cell 117, 299-310; Tuske, et al. (2005) Cell 122, 541-522; Temiaov, et al. (2005) Mol. Cell. 19, 655-666; Vassulyev, et al. (2005) Nature Structl. Biol. 12, 1086-1093; Gnatt, et al. (2001) Science 292, 1876-1882; Westover, et al. (2004a) Science 303, 1014-1016; Westover, et al. (2004b) Cell 119, 481-489; Ketenberger, et al. (2004) Mol. Cell. 16, 955-965; Bushnell, et al. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 1218-1222; Kettenberger, et al. (2005) Natl. Structl. Mol. Biol. 13, 44-48).
The structures reveal that RNAP—bacterial or eukaryotic—has a shape reminiscent of a crab claw. The two “pincers” of the “claw” define the active-center cleft that can accommodate a double-stranded nucleic acid-and which has the active-center Mg2+ at its base. The largest subunit (β′ in bacterial RNAP) makes up one pincer, termed the “clamp,” and part of the base of the active-center cleft. The second-largest subunit (β in bacterial RNAP) makes up the other pincer and part of the base of the active-center cleft.
Moreover, based on the structures, as well as biophysical and biochemical results, models have been proposed for the structures of transcription initiation and elongation complexes (Gnatt et al., (2001) Science 292, 1876-1882; Ebright, R. (2000) J. Mol. Biol. 304, 687-689; Naryshkin, et al., (2000) Cell 101, 601-611); Kim et al., (2000) Science 288, 1418-1421; Korzheva, et al., (2000) Science 289, 619-625; and Mekler et al., (2002) Cell 108:599-614). The models propose that nucleic acids completely fill the active-center cleft of RNAP, such that the only route by which incoming nucleoside triphosphate substrates (NTPs) can access the active center is through an approximately 25 Å long, 10 Å wide tunnel known as the “secondary channel” or “pore,” that bores through the floor of the active-center cleft of RNAP opposite the active-center cleft.
Microcin J25 (MccJ25) (SEQ ID NO:1) is a 21-amino acid bactericidal peptide, which is produced by some strains of intestinal bacterium E. coli. MccJ25 inhibits the growth of Gram-negative bacteria by binding to RNA polymerase. MccJ25 is extremely stable and is potentially useful as an antibacterial and decontamination agent. However, Gram-negative bacteria can become resistant to MccJ25 due to mutations that interfere with MccJ25 uptake or due to mutations in RNA polymerase genes. Moreover, Gram-positive bacteria are resistant to MccJ25, since the drug does not bind to RNA polymerases from these organisms.
The RNA polymerase site interacting with MccJ25 was previously defined by mapping MccJ25-resistance mutations in RNAP (Yuzenkova, et al. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 50867-50875). The mutations mapped around the circumference of the RNAP secondary channel described above. These results suggested that MccJ25 blocks the channel. This suggestion was validated through biochemical, single-molecule, and kinetic analyses (Adelman, et al. (2004) Mol. Cell. 16, 753-762). Moreover, it was previously determined that mature MccJ25 assumes a highly unusual “threaded lasso” structure (Wilson, et al. (2003) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125, 12475-12483).
It would be desirable to provide further peptide antibiotics capable of inhibiting bacterial cell growth by binding to RNA polymerase. In particular, it would be desirable to provide MccJ25 variants with desired specificity toward target bacteria.